Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07

Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Thu, 09 February 2017 00:08 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F219129646; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:08:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=qti.qualcomm.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gbShXwbGEuG0; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:08:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 327F812951A; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:08:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1486598899; x=1518134899; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vsOmJqEWO3Dkn6FYyIjWtwAwGu1JQVd5NmFCVSfsNII=; b=OlTz4wmSdYTw2dh6axqLoFi1amhqp47VapRBaCL3Fv9k+MtCbppr+FP6 aUz8sJhNuZK6DnAwZgenUDFdu066R8O80UN6d+/wN3tgmO3qtItmWxnrD R7/U7RGARIDPd0NF8UxSq2AtbHp9XGA2w4QmU8VygaUjqh2u70UmZumGE o=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,348,1484035200"; d="scan'208,217";a="356687977"
Received: from unknown (HELO Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com) ([10.53.140.111]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 08 Feb 2017 16:08:18 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5800,7501,8433"; a="1287154124"
Received: from nasanexm01f.na.qualcomm.com ([10.85.0.32]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 08 Feb 2017 16:08:18 -0800
Received: from [10.64.105.176] (10.80.80.8) by NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:08:17 -0800
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 18:08:15 -0600
Message-ID: <6DF6F8D6-53F9-4772-A2CB-A8B750C24EF9@qti.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM2PR07MB0994B673F4904750FC2746B1F0420@AM2PR07MB0994.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <148616413998.4157.2652633501511666882.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2ACBB603-E990-4C86-BE83-4FCC741C254B@piuha.net> <AM2PR07MB0994EB1B4B526A4D7A385E8EF0400@AM2PR07MB0994.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <98F6A1A1-2444-4782-99A6-3F5532FE1F63@qti.qualcomm.com> <AM2PR07MB0994A0EE3F25F2BDF4FA20D4F0430@AM2PR07MB0994.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <74FF9057-1D46-4213-B4F0-CFEBC2AB0CA8@qti.qualcomm.com> <AM2PR07MB0994B673F4904750FC2746B1F0420@AM2PR07MB0994.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_959A40E8-025C-4E03-8AC0-8F6A0DFA1DCA_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Embedded-HTML: [{"HTML":[990, 8654], "plain":[549, 1805], "uuid":"2C0D4566-962E-40A2-9EFA-EED3C8ED12CE"}]
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5344)
X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8]
X-ClientProxiedBy: NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32) To NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/oRTtPX1WvufKPPGP5nSCYE1qXZQ>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext.all@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 00:08:21 -0000

If that's what you mean, let me suggest simplifying:

OLD
                                                At least one priority
    level MUST be advertised that, unless overridden by local policy,
    SHALL be at priority level 0.
NEW
                                                At least one priority
    level MUST be advertised. If only one priority level is advertised,
    it MUST be at priority level 0.

Thanks for the extended discussion of this. It all looks fine.

pr

On 8 Feb 2017, at 4:14, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:

> Hi Pete,
>
> This is an “inheritance” from GMPLS, where supporting a single 
> priority equals not supporting priorities. If you don’t want to 
> support priorities you don’t want your traffic to be 
> preempted…hence priority 0.
>
>
>> Well, it doesn't say that shouldn't be done, but it probably doesn't 
>> need to say anything about local configurations.
> For me it’s ok not to say anything on that.
>
> Thanks
> Daniele
>
> From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qti.qualcomm.com]
> Sent: martedì 7 febbraio 2017 18:05
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
> Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>; gen-art@ietf.org; 
> draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext.all@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org; 
> ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of 
> draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07
>
>
> Hi Daniele,
>
> Thanks for addressing everything. There's only one issue left in 
> section 4.1.1 on Priority, below. I've trimmed out all the rest.
>
> On 7 Feb 2017, at 3:36, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
>
> I get that part ("At least one priority level MUST be advertised"). 
> It's the end I don't understand: "that, unless overridden by local 
> policy, SHALL be at priority level 0." What does that mean?
>
> [DC] It means that if only one priority is supported it has to be 
> priority 0.
>
> So, let me see if I have this right: It's OK to have 01100000 but not 
> 01000000 or 00100000? If so, why is that?
>
> For any particular administrative purpose it could be possible to set 
> it to a different value, but that shouldn’t be done.
>
> Well, it doesn't say that shouldn't be done, but it probably doesn't 
> need to say anything about local configurations.
>
> pr
> --
> Pete Resnick 
> http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/<http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/>
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478